VFR into IMC kills one

What reportedly happened: The 79-year-old private pilot, who held an instrument rating and had logged 1,643 hours, obtained two abbreviated weather briefings prior to departure.

He initially planned to fly a familiar route over mountainous terrain, but then changed his proposed route of flight to one that would take him further north over the mountains on an unfamiliar path.

He did not obtain any additional weather briefings. Had he obtained a weather briefing for his revised flight path, he would have received an AIRMET for mountain obscuration along his route of flight.

A review of GPS track data revealed that the flight was uneventful until the pilot began to cross over the mountains on a northwesterly heading at 12,500 feet. The airplane entered IFR conditions, which witnesses described as a fast, west-to-east moving front that involved mountain obscuration, turbulence, snow, and icing conditions.

During the last 4 1/2 minutes of the flight, the pilot began a series of climbing and descending turns that involved variations in airspeeds consistent with a loss of situational awareness or disorientation. The last recorded data by an onboard GPS indicated the airplane was at an altitude of 11,279 feet on a heading of 084° at a groundspeed of 81 knots. The airplane crashed in mountainous terrain at an elevation of about 10,700 feet.

A post-accident examination revealed no mechanical deficiencies with the airplane or the engine. Results of postmortem toxicology testing were consistent with the relatively recent use of an impairing antihistamine, which is often used to treat allergies. It is possible that the pilot was impaired by his recent use of the antihistamine, although the role of any such impairment in the accident sequence could not be established.

Probable cause: The pilot’s continued visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in loss of situational awareness, and a possible encounter with icing conditions.

About General Aviation News Staff

Comments

Guys what about the effect of altitude and lower oxygen saturation in his blood. It is well established the effects of altitude have on decision making, and when a 79 YO is at 12000′ for any period of time you can not expect the same answers and reactions when compared to a 79 YO at sea level.

Wow, he used an antihistamine before the flight.? His use of an antihistamine is far better than having a stopped-up head or snot running down his nose. I doubt I will live long enough for the FAA/NTSB will get over this kind of nonsense. People use antihistamines and other “banned” over-the-counter meds all the time and drive cars/large trucks, operate machinery, etc… all of the time with no ill effects. Another reason to get rid of the ridiculously ineffective so called “medical exam” required by the FAA. You can pass the medical easily and walk right out of the Doctor’s office and drop dead from a heart attack.

Sure….the stakes get Way higher at the controls and at altitude, as John pointed out…can’t rule out all of the med factors……we avoid non-critical meds, unnecessary for that flight….we fly, we survive…..And we live to fly again….Plain Truth..